Extent of BLM Support

[Cow Poke]

Chuckie ought to be scooting in on his hind end, leaving a skidmark in the process, squeaking and squawking about WHATABOUTISM!!1!eleventy-one! any minute now

You are attacking his very delicate person, you meanie!

[rogue06]

You are attacking his very delicate person, you meanie!

But this is tailor made for the lad. I mean how more pathetic can you get than after being shown that a BLM co-founder was arrested for modern day slave trafficking that you respond with (paraphrase here) "Well the Bad Orange Man was friends with a pedophile before he found out about it and summarily gave him the boot the moment he discovered what sort of person he was!"

Then again Chuckie is incredibly selective with his outrage. To date he has never criticized anyone from his side for engaging in the very behavior that supposedly gets his knickers in a bunch. Not once.

[Cow Poke]

But this is tailor made for the lad. I mean how more pathetic can you get than after being shown that a BLM co-founder was arrested for modern day slave trafficking that you respond with (paraphrase here) "Well the Bad Orange Man was friends with a pedophile before he found out about it and summarily gave him the boot!"

Then again Chuckie is incredibly selective with his outrage. To date he has never criticized anyone from his side for engaging in the very behavior that supposedly gets his knickers in a bunch. Not once.

Yes, sir - he tends to attack Christians and defend the loony left on a pretty consistent basis. But he usually does so politely, and with a kind smile.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You appear to have missed the article from the New England Journal of Medicine.


The point that you clearly missed as it sailed over your head was that early on was that virtually everyone was downplaying its severity, primarily due to the Chicoms deliberately lying about its severity and how it was transmitted.

I understand that a memo was sent from Navarro to the NSC on 29 January about the risks of this virus, that is six days after the Chinese shut down Wuhan province. In that memo Navarro called for "an immediate travel ban on China. At the end of January the NYT reported travel bans/restrictions from China. However, according to the AP it transpires that Trump’s order did not fully “close” the US off to China, it merely temporarily barred entry by foreign nationals who had travelled in China within the previous 14 days, with exceptions for the immediate family of US citizens and permanent residents. Other Americans returning from China were allowed back after enhanced screening at select ports of entry and for 14 days afterwards.

[rogue06]

I understand that a memo was sent from Navarro to the NSC on 29 January about the risks of this virus, that is six days after the Chinese shut down Wuhan province. In that memo Navarro called for "an immediate travel ban on China. At the end of January the NYT reported travel bans/restrictions from China. However, according to the AP it transpires that Trump’s order did not fully “close” the US off to China, it merely temporarily barred entry by foreign nationals who had travelled in China within the previous 14 days, with exceptions for the immediate family of US citizens and permanent residents. Other Americans returning from China were allowed back after enhanced screening at select ports of entry and for 14 days afterwards.

I understand that early on Trump cut travel from China in order to slow the spread (Fauci said that move saved many thousands of lives) only to be blasted as being racist and a xenophobe by the left and MSM (a distinction without a difference).

When he was issuing warnings about it (although still underestimating its severity) the same bunch was mocking him and claiming he was trying to "distract" people.

[rogue06]

It seems the H_A is really desperate to divert attention away from BLM's connection to modern day slave trafficking.

[Cow Poke]

It seems the H_A is really desperate to divert attention away from BLM's connection to modern day slave trafficking.

It's racist NOT to bow down and kiss the tuchus of BLM. All the big companies are dutifully complying.

[rogue06]

It's racist NOT to bow down and kiss the tuchus of BLM. All the big companies are dutifully complying.

Dh3g-bOW0AAgt20.jpg

[Cow Poke]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]47060[/ATTACH]

I saw that just the other day, and thought.... EGGzackly!!!

[Charles]

But this is tailor made for the lad. I mean how more pathetic can you get than after being shown that a BLM co-founder was arrested for modern day slave trafficking that you respond with (paraphrase here) "Well the Bad Orange Man was friends with a pedophile before he found out about it and summarily gave him the boot the moment he discovered what sort of person he was!"

Then again Chuckie is incredibly selective with his outrage. To date he has never criticized anyone from his side for engaging in the very behavior that supposedly gets his knickers in a bunch. Not once.

It seems to me you missed the point Hypatia_Alexandria had. Mostly, when you apply your whataboutism, it is because you want us to accept wrongdoing. We should not be concerned with something obviously wrong, because others did the same or did even worse. That is your low standard. Actually calling it a standard is a stretch.

What you also did was to create a direct connection between criminal activity that a co-founder of BLM had done and the values, ideas and ideals of the organization. If you want his criminal activity to have anything to do with BLM you need to show how and why the organization is complicit. You have failed to do so. And judging by your reaction to the examples Hypatia_Alexandria provided it certainly seems you agree that such a connection must be demonstrated in case of Trump. So, that would be your place to start and we would have to change our oppinions accordingly if you can do so.

So, quite basically, what you identify as whataboutism of the sort you usually provide does not seem to be so. It is not (at least not in my reading) in any way a defense of what a criminal person did. It is rather pointing out that you need to establish the connection between the individual and the organization if you want to spray the stink on the organization. The same goes for churches where sexual abuse takes place and the like. You need to show the link between the individual doing something illegal and the organization if you want the stink to apply to them as well. If Hypatia_Alexandria disagrees with any of this I will, of course, have to reconsider.

You seem to be rather furious lately with all sorts of posts about me pointing to your whataboutism. Your language also seems rather desperate and you use words like "pathetic" about what Hypatia_Alexandria did when it seems you simply failed to see the point. Whataboutism in your form is pushing for lower standards. I understand why you get tired of that. I will, however, continue to point it out. The fact that you sometime point to it in advance just makes it even more obvious that you are clearly aware of what you are doing.

[Whateverman]

It seems to me you missed the point Hypatia_Alexandria had. Mostly, when you apply your whataboutism, it is because you want us to accept wrongdoing. We should not be concerned with something obviously wrong, because others did the same or did even worse. That is your low standard. Actually calling it a standard is a stretch.

What you also did was to create a direct connection between criminal activity that a co-founder of BLM had done and the values, ideas and ideals of the organization. If you want his criminal activity to have anything to do with BLM you need to show how and why the organization is complicit. You have failed to do so. And judging by your reaction to the examples Hypatia_Alexandria provided it certainly seems you agree that such a connection must be demonstrated in case of Trump. So, that would be your place to start and we would have to change our oppinions accordingly if you can do so.

So, quite basically, what you identify as whataboutism of the sort you usually provide does not seem to be so. It is not (at least not in my reading) in any way a defense of what a criminal person did. It is rather pointing out that you need to establish the connection between the individual and the organization if you want to spray the stink on the organization. The same goes for churches where sexual abuse takes place and the like. You need to show the link between the individual doing something illegal and the organization if you want the stink to apply to them as well. If Hypatia_Alexandria disagrees with any of this I will, of course, have to reconsider.

You seem to be rather furious lately with all sorts of posts about me pointing to your whataboutism. Your language also seems rather desperate and you use words like "pathetic" about what Hypatia_Alexandria did when it seems you simply failed to see the point. Whataboutism in your form is pushing for lower standards. I understand why you get tired of that. I will, however, continue to point it out. The fact that you sometime point to it in advance just makes it even more obvious that you are clearly aware of what you are doing.

Personal stuff aside (because I'm neither rejecting nor endorsing it), this was an excellent post. Clear, reasonable and effective.

[Bill the Cat]

It seems to me you missed the point Hypatia_Alexandria had. Mostly, when you apply your whataboutism, it is because you want us to accept wrongdoing. We should not be concerned with something obviously wrong, because others did the same or did even worse. That is your low standard. Actually calling it a standard is a stretch.

What you also did was to create a direct connection between criminal activity that a co-founder of BLM had done and the values, ideas and ideals of the organization. If you want his criminal activity to have anything to do with BLM you need to show how and why the organization is complicit. You have failed to do so. And judging by your reaction to the examples Hypatia_Alexandria provided it certainly seems you agree that such a connection must be demonstrated in case of Trump. So, that would be your place to start and we would have to change our oppinions accordingly if you can do so.

So, quite basically, what you identify as whataboutism of the sort you usually provide does not seem to be so. It is not (at least not in my reading) in any way a defense of what a criminal person did. It is rather pointing out that you need to establish the connection between the individual and the organization if you want to spray the stink on the organization. The same goes for churches where sexual abuse takes place and the like. You need to show the link between the individual doing something illegal and the organization if you want the stink to apply to them as well. If Hypatia_Alexandria disagrees with any of this I will, of course, have to reconsider.

You seem to be rather furious lately with all sorts of posts about me pointing to your whataboutism. Your language also seems rather desperate and you use words like "pathetic" about what Hypatia_Alexandria did when it seems you simply failed to see the point. Whataboutism in your form is pushing for lower standards. I understand why you get tired of that. I will, however, continue to point it out. The fact that you sometime point to it in advance just makes it even more obvious that you are clearly aware of what you are doing.

It's humorous to me that you post such things. When Rogue posts things you classify as "whataboutism", it is to get you to see the level of hypocrisy you are engaging in by not holding an equally outraged position for those on your side of the political aisle. It makes your pearl-clutching positively humorous.

[Cow Poke]

Personal stuff aside (because I'm neither rejecting nor endorsing it), this was an excellent post. Clear, reasonable and effective.

He does write well!

[Charles]

Personal stuff aside (because I'm neither rejecting nor endorsing it), this was an excellent post. Clear, reasonable and effective.

Thanks a lot. I did have to spend some time writing it so I am glad you liked it.

[rogue06]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]47062[/ATTACH]

[*One long self-righteous rationalization for your blatant hypocrisy and selective outrage noted*]